John Edwards Addresses the Mother of all Other Issues

[Triana]

And he’s the only candidate addressing it. Obama recently mentioned it as a vague afterthought with George Stephanopolous, but that’s about it.

It barely garners a mention from either of the other two candidates.

What is that issue?

It is the fact that corporations have control of our government, its legislation, processes, and representatives and that it has for FAR FAR too long.

And this is what prevents any substantial progress on any other issues we face: Iraq, the economy and jobs, the environment, national security, healthcare, the retention of our civil rights (see telecom spying immunity), and not least, the issues of economic and social justice.

REAL substantial solutions to all those issues has been thwarted by the corporate control of our gov’t for far far too long.

So - remedying that problem is prerequisite to being able to do anything about all the other issues facing this country.

JOHN EDWARDS is the only candidate who even mentions that, much less intends to do anything about it.

JOHN EDWARDS is the only candidate who will implement REAL CHANGE in our government as President.

The other two candidates - while they LOOK very different - don’t represent and will not implement the REAL SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES we need in our government now and going forward.

It’s wonderful that we have progressed socially enough to have a woman and an African American on the ticket. No one can argue that. But what they’ll DO once in office is the same ol status quo.

We’ve heard and seen that — and we know where their money comes from. It comes from those same corporations, PACS, special interests and lobbyists who control our government NOW.

And while some things will change under their administrations, the biggest problems we face as a nation will still remain essentially unresolved.

Or - just like with our energy policy and the Medicare Rx Drug Plan - they will be resolved primarily to the benefit of the corporations like those that bought a Clinton or Obama administration — instead of being resolved for the benefit of the PEOPLE most suffering from those problems — and for the benefit of the environment, our country and its standing and security in the world.

By stark contrast, an Edwards administration won’t be bought by corporations or controlled by them.

An Edwards administration won’t treat this issue - and ALL of the issues we still face mostly because of that big one, as an afterthought.

And ironically, HE (the white guy) is the one most passionately addressing the social and economic justice issues facing people of color, vets, and women. (ie: poverty)

JOHN EDWARDS KNOWS where the proverbial bull sh*t in the buckwheat.

HE GETS IT.

And he’s THE ONLY ONE who does.

The other two, while they certainly LOOK different than past candidates, are just part of the same old problem.

_ _ _ _ _

(from my blog and I gave myself permission to post it in its entirety)

LINK:
http://www.cassandrafiles.com/?p=197

[Critters2]

1. Shhh. We're not supposed to talk about the corporations.

Repeat after me. Hope. Experience. Change. Hope. Experience. Change.


Feeling better?

[Triana]

13. Pfffft! Don't forget UNITY! (one of Obama's favorite words)

Yessiree, we're all UNIFIED alright -- in that NONE of us have ANY voice in our corporate-owned government anymore.

Honey, we GOT unity. We NEED change!

And I don't think "Mr. Unity" is gonna bring the REAL substantial change we need in this country. (esp when he's taking tons of money from those corporations to get elected).

[niceypoo]

75. The mother of all issues will be GLOBAL WARMING

and it will become apparent within the next ten years. We are in for a hell of a ride.

[frogcycle]

84. the two are inseparable

[Triana]

99. Exactly. They certainly are. Can't have progress on climate change

(or anything else) until you toss out the corps and their lobbyists and change the locks - so we can get down to the PEOPLE'S and the NATION'S business - instead of just THEIRS.

[Sean Stuart]

151. Or a more likely solution ...

When we make it so the wealthy can get wealthier by solving global warming, then you will see results

[Triana]

98. that's one of those issues that our gov't has made ZERO PROGRESS ON.....

..thanks to the fact that they let the OIL and GAS and COAL companies write our ENERGY POLICY. (Cheney never would release the list of the companies who participated).

That's exactly what Edwards is talking about when he says "corporate stranglehold" and "special interests" having control over our government.

We end up with either NO solutions, or solutions that only benefit those corporations and special interests - everyone and everything else be damned.

That's exactly what happened - that's exactly why we have made NO progress on the climate change issue - along with so many other critical ones. The damn corporations and their lobbyists control the process and the gov't - and as long as that's going on, NOTHING will substantially change.

And those corporations (particularly insurance, pharma, etc. - maybe even oil and gas) have given how much money to Clinton and Obama thus far?

Puh. I have a hard time believing that they don't EXPECT something in return for it once C or O are in there. They certainly do.

[clarence swinney]

122. PHARMA $$$$

1,000 work for them in Lobbying firms
Prior to OIL(recent) this industry made more profits than any industry for many years.

Many plants overseas.

Bristol Myers Squibb recently moved jobs from local to Mexico and India.

Nearby GE plant moved to Mexico.

PROFIT = only thing = wall street control is for only profits and they control the corporations.

Ruin our labor force is ok

Cut costs=cut benefits

20% workers are in Health Care per
National Manufacturers Assn.

[L0oniX]

123. The end of easy to get oil problem will undo us way before global warming.

Even a Shell board of directors member said recently that easy to get oil will be gone by 2012. After that you can count on the federal, state and local governments taking all the oil for national security reasons. They will need it for tanks and armored vehicles when we all pour into the street and riot over lack of food when we all are out of gas and jobs. Oh and I am sure that some are planning on this with disaster capitalism. If you think that whoever gets into the presidential office will be able to avoid this looming disaster then I'd like to sell you a slightly used oil rig too. I know you will ignore this and or treat it as nonsense so fine, wait till it hits you in the face. The warnings are all out there for anyone to read up on and you will only have yourselves to blame for not taking back our government and changing back to a subsistence life style where food and water are most important. We should be getting ready for it now. But go on ...keep driving your SUV and other gas hogs and keep up your delusional optimism. Your children will not have cars or the gas it takes to run them and that is the sorry truth.
:sarcasm:

[LiberalHeart]

93. And don't forget the hope. We gotta have hope. It'll feed the hungry.

[DaLittle Kitty]

109. Funny How Such Trivia is So CONVIENENTLY CAST ASIDE BY THE "CORPORATE OWNED MEDIA" The Voice of Corp

AMERICA! John Edwards represents an historic threat to that power... John Edwards is the HISTORY MAKING CANDIDATE IF ELECTED... NOT THE OTHER TWO........

[Triana]

115. Yea. WE know that but...see Voltaire99's post below - #105 He says it all

...in three short paragraphs:
_ _ _ _ _

"Populism is a hard sell to innocents. Kids, identity politics voters and suburban soccer moms aren't exactly keen to hear it.

They'll all become populists after the economy crashes. Ironically, for now, the Democratic nomination is being guided by superficial tastes and a banal news media -- and especially by fantasies that if we can only replace big bad Bush, everything will be fine. Nope: you'll still have the same complacent party that bent over for Bushism over and over again. Not a dime's worth of difference...

Let's see how backing the guy with the Wall St. funding who likes Reagan and the woman who likes war and corporations works for ya, folks!"

_ _ _ _ _

Sad but true. That's just where we're headed.

[Inspired]

17. Don't forget, they are people too. n/t

[Critters2]

18. LOL!! A candidate's best friend. nt

[DaLittle Kitty]

107. Lemmings... ATTENTION!!!!! GET IN LINE W/ THOSE WHO KNOW BETTER... Listhten...Just Say Change and..

Everything will be better... It DOES NOT MATTER if HOW is missing... Just get in line and follow the Experienced candidate... or... The Messianic Candidate... Do not Think! :puke:

[pauldg0]

157. I love that.........

...the Obama youngsters don't get it. It's all about the charismatic Obama of hope and nothing about the issues at hand.

[Krashkopf]

175. Oh, Lord . . . Kumbaya!

[sloppyjoe25s]

176. Recovering Edwards Supporters?

JOIN US - Barack will take on the Corporations with a real Coalition. John Edwards is a great guy - but he did not and does not have the same skills as Obama. Join us and we can win!!



Comments from www.ObamaTags.com


Comments from www.ObamaTags.com


Comments from www.ObamaTags.com


Comments from www.ObamaTags.com

[Mythsaje]

2. America's getting dicked

and the Democratic Party is happily applying the lube.

[Yael]

9. Wait!

You got lube?

[zalinda]

28. He must be richer than the rest of us n/t

[KnaveRupe]

66. That's the difference between the Dems and repubs...

... both are doing the same thing to us, but the dems are at least using lube.

[Triana]

11. Yep. The Democratic Party has lost its foundation...

...the corporate media has the two novelty candidates in front of people 24 x 7 touting them as stars and agents of "change".

Well...they LOOK different. So people think they'll be different when they govern as President.

But really, HOW do people think substantial change is gonna happen in Washington when the funding of those two top candidates' campaigns looks like the chart below? It doesn't take a rocket scientist, given what I wrote above about what THE problem really is, and given the charts below - to figure out who the REAL change candidate is -- and unfortunately, it's the white guy.

It's certainly NOT the woman or the African American who are both taking all that quid-pro-quo money from the SAME entities that have our government's neck in a guillotine now -- and who've been writing our energy and Medicare Rx drug and other policies.

That ain't change, folks. It's a ruse. I don't know HOW the picture could BE any clearer.

JOHN EDWARDS knows and REMEMBERS the foundation of the Democratic Party AND of this nation and he is the ONLY one who can return this country and this party back into what it was MEANT to be.

[jackson_dem]

23. Very informative graphic!

[avaistheone1]

29. That graph says it all.

Edwards is the only candidate who is unbought.

[robbedvoter]

3. Geez, for a moment I thought he talked of stolen elections. McCain runs with

that other one. It's important, but not the mother in my book.

[rhett o rick]

68. Getting corporate control out of government is the biggest issue. nm

[bagrman]

154. Not to worry the Shepple won't get violent, they never do.

[rhett o rick]

158. If they did they'd risk not getting their $600. nm

[bagrman]

178. Can't risk your pile of stuff on somthing silly like your freedom.

[Gloria]

4. See my post on Shelby Steele and his book on Obama...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2774551&mesg_id=2774551

Notice anything that sounds familiar in his comments? The eerie similarity between Obama and Clinton??

Does it give you the impression that he will fight corporations????

[FrenchieCat]

103. Shelby Steele is now a revered source?

The Black conservative from the Hoover Institute who is into self hatred? Gee, sad that you are reading any of his books. Hope you don't think its going to teach you anything about Black people and their spyche...cause I can tell you now, it wont. But if you buy the book, he can make some money.

[judaspriestess]

5. he's talking about it now but his voting record

speaks 'different'. People are not allowed to change, grow or realize mistakes that have been made. Didn't ya know that?:eyes: He's damned if he does and damned if he don't and thats just too damned bad.

But he's got my support 100% because I smell what he's stepping in and I don't like it either.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

6. Do you all see why Edwards needs to continue throughout this primary?

....."the fact that corporations have control of our government, its legislation, processes, and representatives and that it has for FAR FAR too long...."

That message needs to get out to those who do not already realize that. It's VITAL that that message get out.

[Yael]

10. Is there a word stronger than VITAL?

I can't underscore how important this is to me personally.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

12. HEAR HEAR! nt

[ElboRuum]

144. I've always thought CRUCIAL was a tad stronger. YMMV. n/t

[cbayer]

14. What about this message?

Speaking to chief executives at the Fortune Global Forum in November 2002, Edwards said, "Nothing is more important to our economy than the success of the people in this room - your success in leading companies, in building wealth for your shareholders, in creating jobs for millions of Americans."

What?????

[Sarah Ibarruri]

16. And I hate the corrupt, sick bastards at the meat companies, but I eat meat...

And I would personally kick the asses of the CEOs of almost all Fortune 500 companies, but I have an IRA.... and I HATE the fact that corporations have taken all our jobs from our country but want us to buy their Chinese-manufactured goods, and I'm wearing some F Chinese-manufactured jeans. What would you have me do? Shoot myself? And would you have Edwards shoot himself? Would you care to point out who else is telling the truth, hmmm? Do you ever get out there and tell people how F corrupt companies are? No? Oh I thought as much.

[smokey nj]

20. Smells like troll.

[cbayer]

27. wow, you must also have me confused with someone else

haven't been active at du for long, but a member for years. and every time i challenge john edwards i get called a troll or a freeper or ignorant or worse. what gives? i am not attacking him, i am just challenging him.

[smokey nj]

36. Disabled profile and only 30 posts.

[cbayer]

41. i don't get it

how am i supposed to get enough posts to have any credibility if i can't post without getting slapped down for not having enough posts?
and the profile? sorry, i did not realize i have an option of enabling or disabling and will change that.

and i am sure it will please you, but i guess i am done trying to get any reasonable responses to questions about his past record and how it does or does not support his current positions. I came here because i wanted to like him and wanted to be convinced that he really meant what he says. now, i will just have to choose between the other two. i too am angry and disheartened by what has happened the last 8 years and desperate for a solution. but one of the reasons bush got elected was because people did not ask themselves hard questions about who he really was. they fell in love with an idea (as insane as it was) and went with their hearts and their fears. i hope that that does not happen again.

[smokey nj]

42. You also failed to provide a link to the speech. I did that for you.

Don't bother responding because I'm putting you on ignore. Since you've only managed to post 31 times in your tenure here at DU, I'm sure I won't be missing much.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

50. who do you support and why do you? nt

[cbayer]

52. right now, any democratic candidate

why? because we have come as close to destroying this country as we possibly could due to the policies of the republican party and the bush administration in particular. i appreciate the link to the whole speech. i did not find that in my searches and that is the kind of response i am looking for.
but the divisiveness on this website is disheartening and speaks loudly to why this party is in shambles. i think it would benefit us all to be a little more open-minded and receptive to differences in opinion. isn't that what we are really about?
and my initial objections to edwards had to do with his legal history and my personal experiences in healthcare. but i am trying to move away from that single issue and get a bigger picture.
so, thanks for asking. i appreciate that.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

54. Thanks for answering. I hope you vote. nt

[ExPatLeftist]

129. Don't let them get you down...

While I support Edwards for president and do not necessarily agree with your points about him, I do agree with your points and questions about those attacking you as I value discussion from all perspectives.

I have not been posting here for very long, and when I first started I got some similar responses. Although I have been reading articles and blogs here for almost 8 years now (and exceedingly politically active for over 20), I had not posted because I am generally not interested in acting as an echo chamber for others. I like to discuss issues which are more contentious, and do not see the value in simple "Yay, I agree!" type of posts. That is just my preference, and I am not dissing anyone that posts like that. Because I had not posted much, people (with a complete lack of logic) assumed that I was not politically active, had just stumbled upon DU, must be a troll, etc. I guess for some people, there is no world outside of DU and if you are active in real life then you MUST first be active here. Bullshit. I can guarantee that there are extremely active and knowledgeable political activists that have never posted here whose activism would put most here to shame. and Yet if they did post here, they very well may get the same type of response that this poster got -"Only 30 posts", and blind and offense statements that ASSume that the poster is not active in other ways. That is a complete lack of logic. "Low number of posts on DU = inactive politically or = troll" is a ridiculous logical fallacy, and can only attest to the arrogance and ignorance of the people making those statements, nothing more.

I really hope that those of you that actually think that your post count makes you somehow more informed, more "active" or in any way "better" would re-think your position on that - and use actual logic this time. Measuring your anatomy (or your post count) in the sandbox is really a silly and immature way to go, IMO.

This attacking of newbies is a fairly common occurrence here, from what I have seen. And it really has a detrimental impact on all of us here. Personally, I value hearing all opinions - even those with which I disagree. And I have enough confidence in myself to not need to attempt to boost my ego by getting a big head about something so incredibly trivial as a post count on a web page.

[cbayer]

135. Really thoughtful post

Thanks for that. You put so many of my own thoughts into words better than i could have. I also have been a member of DU for years and only recently became active because i wanted some thoughtful discussion on the candidates and because i am terrified that we might lose this election. I have been very politically active in the past, to the point that it almost killed me and i had to back off.

I have had a hard time understanding where some of these people are coming from. If they can't have a civil discussion with a compatriot, how in the world are they going to work with those whose views are worlds away from theirs.

I think DU ought to rethink the whole policy regarding number of posts. I have not been able to recommend threads or send PM's due to "not enough posts". And I will not repeat your excellent discussion about how some members use this number both as a badge and a weapon.

[beezlebum]

108. well

"I came here because i wanted to like him and wanted to be convinced that he really meant what he says. now, i will just have to choose between the other two."

now you wonder why someone got confused and called you a troll.

i have also questioned the fortress involvement. fact is, it pales in comparison to the corporate beddings of "the other two," so when you say, "well, jre's involvement in a corporate hedge fund bothers me, so i'm going to pick one of the two biggest corporate junkies instead..." well, see what i'm getting at?

"the other two" have proven far more disingenuous, dishonest, and, well, corporatist. their obvious predilection for (a-hem, this word is starting to make my head go buzz), corporations (see the above chart as posted by triana @ #11) strikes me as profoundly hypocritical and basically, not helpful to our delicate economic situation.

btw, i've been told in my questioning of john edwards fortress fund/employment that once he realized this was a co which was behind policies that were driving the middle class into poverty, he donated the money to katrina victims. haven't found links to that but i like to think it's true since options are limited.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

Did you just give yourself away by accident? nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

46. Did you just give yourself away by accident? nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

45. Who? nt

[smokey nj]

47. The poster to whom you were responding.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

49. Aah ok. nt

[cbayer]

25. Wow, you must have me confused with someone else.

Honestly, I am 100% behind the message. But, sadly, this particular messenger has not truly lived out what he is preaching. He means well but his actual record, including his brief senate career, just don't support his message. I am glad, however, that he is delivering the message and has gotten the conversation fired up.

By the way, I live almost completely off the grid and use everything i have got to not just spread this message but live it.

And no, I can't really point out to you anyone else who is telling the truth.

Peace

[femrap]

82. ot...I'm interested in how

you got off the gird if you want to pm me. I've been looking at those straw-bale houses.

Thx.

[cbayer]

86. are you serious or do you just want to beat me up?

apparently i don't have enough posts to pm you. but if you are serious, i would love to tell you.

[femrap]

90. I tried to pm you, but can't...

no I don't want to beat you up. I would love to get off the gird. I visited a house that was so cool...even had composting toilets! But the owners were wealthy and could do all of that. Hurry up and get the required posts and then pm me. Or go to environment forum and start a thread...but maybe you have to have so many posts before you can start a thread....this doesn't seem too democratic, does it? lol.

I've got to get to bed now anyway. I'll look forward to hearing about your off gird experience and how you got there.

[cbayer]

91. not very democratic at all

would give you my e-mail, but some of the people here really scare me. will keep posting and contact you. doesn't involve much money, just courage and inventiveness and a willingness to live life in a completely different way.
good night and sleep well.
peace

[cbayer]

96. living off the grid

was able to post in environmental group and want to thank you for your guidance.

[smokey nj]

40. Here's another excerpt from that speech, as well as a link so people can read it in its entirety.

"We have to do better, and we can. We don't have to look to Wall Street or Washington to find the principles we need. We can find those principles in the way millions of small business owners, factory workers, office workers, salespeople, and secretaries live their lives every day. Even as government has failed in its responsibilities, most Americans have embraced theirs. They are working harder than ever before, even though too often they're earning less. They're volunteering more in their communities, even though economic pressures mean they have less time to give. Our challenge is to get our government and our economy back in line with our values.

It is time for a new ethic of economic responsibility. Government leaders need to stop trying to score political points and start strengthening our economic foundations—fiscal responsibility, stable markets, and skilled workers. Corporate leaders need to get away from battling against any kind of rules and ask how we can achieve the goal we all share—restoring the confidence of ordinary investors that the system isn't rigged. In the short run, this will be difficult for everyone. In the long run, it will be better for everyone."

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/edwards/edw111202sp.html

[Sarah Ibarruri]

48. Thanks! nt

[zalinda]

31. You posted this exact same thing on another thread

Give it a rest. There are good corporations and bad corporations. Can you understand that? He does not want to tear down all corporations, just the ones that are raping the workers.

Dear goddess, get a life.

zalinda

[Armstead]

34. You are missing the point

Edwards is not "anti-business" and he certainly doesn't want to see the economy run into a ditch.

But he (and many others) recognize that the balance far too much in the direction of corporate power over civil society.

Big difference.

[AlbertCat]

126. So...what ABOUT that message?

Uh...Hello....

Edwards doesn't want corporations to FAIL....he just wants them to have not so much influence in government. Corps can be successful and still be regulated for the benifit of the general population, y'know. Corps ARE important to our economy.

There is nothing "contradictory" in this statement whatsoever.

And BTW that's why you sound like a troll.

[femrap]

81. I just read a post from an Obama supporter

who was comparing Nader to Edwards. Are these Obama young 'uns that stupid? I can not read anymore of their ignorance...my eyes are bleeding, my head is throbbing, and I'm beginning to develop a true dislike for anyone 25 or younger.

I don't think Obama supporters see the racism that is alive and well in this country. I hope I am wrong, but I don't think Obama can beat the Republican Candidate. Plus Obama is not progressive.

I need to go away from all of this...I can't believe we are heading for another train wreck. I need to go to sleep.

[Triana]

100. We are headed straight for another trainwreck I fear....

...actually, it's just the same one that seems to never end.

[DaLittle Kitty]

110. When the Obamarama Newbies get FUC*ED By The ESTABLISHMENT... They Will NOT Vote in General...

They will go away... That's where John Edwards Saves the day... Holding the party and its new found participants... together...:)

[balantz]

119. Interesting point. There is a core of populism that will pick up the pieces.

The disillusionment will be huge, and the truth will be painful when the cardboard props fall and all the masses of hero-worshipping people find themselves in a greater shambles than they are in now. We will be left with little else but the hard work of rebuilding the party into the populist peoples' party, or, the true democratic party, WAY left of center. The one Edwards promotes: of the people, by the people and for the people.

[SammyWinstonJack]

127. "I can't believe we are heading for another train wreck." I can.

x(

[peacetalksforall]

116. I endorse that statement - Clinton from a government career, Obama from

an academic & government career. Edwards knows the corporations. If you know your way around the structures and agendas of corporations the way he had to learn it - he is more timely to our survival than Clinton and Obama even though we all want minorities to win.

We are in dire straits. I don't think a government background is the best - especially because their positions against the wrongs of this country are not so strong.

The Republicans have such nambies running - if they get Clinton or Obama they may win more that if one of theirs pulled it off.

If they get Clinton they are going to get a part Republican - they will retain what they cherish in policy and still have their object of hate to use politically with their base - with the grand, exquisite help of the media - the proof of which we've seen.

If they get Obama, I'm still not sure what we're going to see. A good man. For me, a vague outcome.

This is my sad realization as of today.

[Triana]

120. That's the blur...

...people want minorities to win - so do I - but I HAVE TO think about whether these two people are what is really needed for TRUE CHANGE in Washington and the answer is - NO.

Knowing what I know of their records, their financing (and therefore who is likely to most influence them once elected), their proposed policies and the things they say and the things they DO NOT SAY - I don't think they are the best choice for REAL SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE.

They're just not.

Look at Voltaire99's response below (#105) - he sums it up nicely about what's likely going on. We're likely to end up with a nominee that will just be more of the same type of Democrats we've had for the past 8+ years.

That ain't change. It's the status quo, ironically.

[NastyRiffraff]

7. How truly you speak, Triana

This is one of the vital issues facing us today, and few recognize it. It takes a lot of courage for John Edwards to push it so hard, and to refuse donations from corporate lobbyists.

When I, or anyone, donates to a candidate, I expect something in return. In this case, I expect him (in this case, John Edwards) to look out for my interests, as well as those of my country. My interests are strengthening the middle class, helping the poor, improving education, and universal health care, among others. Kind of like the interests of a lot of Americans.

Make no mistake--these are not the interests of oil companies, Big Pharma, insurance companies, Big Food, and other large corporate interests. Nor are they the interests of corporate media, which is why John has gotten frozen out of their coverage. This is vital to understand; if a candidate is beholden in any way to these interests, they cannot be beholden to We the People, technically their employers. Except we can't pay as well.

Neither Obama nor Clinton is a bad person, but their campaigns are financed as usual. Yes, both (especially Obama) have grassroots financial support, but when you count the money, who are they going to support when there's a conflict between their corporate supporters and the people, should either one win the presidency? Follow the money.

[Triana]

30. EXACTLY, NRR...

...that's the whole thing people seem to be missing. It's like THE POINT - and it's just going over too many people's heads!

[Lugnut]

71. K&R n/t

[Yael]

8. Well written, Triana

:thumbsup:

[Triana]

15. bytheway...

..I posted this on johnedwards.com too and it needs one more vote to get it out of the holding area.

:)

IF (and ONLY if) you think it deserves to be seen on his site outside the holding area, give it a vote over there.

You'll see it listed here (it's down the list a ways as I posted it a few hours ago)

http://blog.johnedwards.com/moderate - it's posted under triana.

[smokey nj]

21. Done!!

[Triana]

24. thank you! :) (n/t)

[begin_within]

19. Thank you!

[smalll]

22. Kind of a let down; thought he might have finally addressed ...

this particular 26,000-square-foot elephant-in-the-room:

(Oh! -- the clearcutting! Watch out for Ents!)

[Andy823]

26. At least he didn't get help

Buying it under cost from some slimeball like Rezko, now did he?:spank:

[zalinda]

33. It's his wife's dream house

You know she's dying of cancer don't you? Would you deny your spouse anything if they were dying. Give it a freaking rest! Go troll some other thread.

zalinda

[smalll]

38. Ah, the cancer issue:

but when some of us see John losing again and again, and his once-real but now-illusory hopes of actually getting the nomination slip away, and suggest that it's time for John to suspend his campaign, AND TAKE ELIZABETH HOME --

somehow, that's beyond the pale. I don't know. :shrug:

[zalinda]

56. Elizabeth still wants to campaign

She is making the decision on her health, it's actually none of your business. Go troll some where else. Don't you have a Clinton or Obama thread you can go hang out at? Seems more your style.

zalinda

[desertflamingo]

62. good grief...

he made a boat load of money helping people without a voice. he has contributed hugely to charity. he's rich. why shouldn't he get to buy a house he can afford. find something relevant to complain about him besides his $400 haircut, his hair and his house. good lord...

EDWARDS '08

[glowing]

83. Umm.. that looks to me like its being built to be donated as a cancer

retreat or a women's shelter.. Not sure, but its spread out just like a hospice...

[Binka]

133. Bingo. I've Heard Elizabeth Set It Up To Be A Hospice When She Leaves This Mortal Coil

Smalll with three l's is indeed a very pathetic thing.

[smalll]

155. If this home-into-hospice thing is true, then I and many others owe the Edwardses an apology -

but is it true? This is the first time I've heard of it. You would think that the Edwards campaign would have made this point clear to counteract one of his big "H" issues. Googling Elizabeth Edwards hospice, or Elizabeth Edwards home hospice doesn't come up with anything promising at first glance. Can this be confirmed?

[RainDog]

159. Are the Kennedy's allowed to have a "compound"

and houses in Palm Beach?

How about John Kerry and his heiress wife?

I suppose I don't get your point. Can you name one person in public life who is highly visible, whether a politician or a film star, etc. that does not live in a fairly large house in a secured area?

As far as telling John to take his wife home... it's so insulting to her for you to say this. Do you walk your wife on a leash to make sure she gets enough air?

[midnight]

118. What is it that bothers you about a man who came from a

two room home, and now can buy many more rooms? Please tell me about your problem. I'm going out on a limb here, but is it that you can't find a way to do that for yourself?

[Zorra]

32. Yeah, but here's the rub:

The global power of the financial centers is so great, that they can afford not to worry about the political tendency of those who hold power in a nation, if the economic program (in other words, the role that nation has in the global economic megaprogram) remains unaltered. The financial disciplines impose themselves upon the different colors of the world political spectrum in regards to the government of any nation. The great world powers can tolerate a leftist government in any part of the world, as long as the government does not take measures that go against the needs of the world financial centers. But in no way will it tolerate that an alternative economic, political and social organization consolidate. For the megapolitics, the national politics are dwarfed and submit to the dict ates of the financial centers. It will be this way until the dwarfs rebel . .

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/ezln/1997/jigsaw.html

John Edwards is addressing the mother of all issues. True.

This is the precise reason that the corporate media has deliberately turned the campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination into an American Idol type contest between Clinton and Obama, a TV reality show without substance.

Corporations will never allow the "mother of all issues" to get major national exposure.

And they know that most Americans are so addicted to their TV titty that they no longer have the wherewithal to discern the real world from what is on television.

[Armstead]

35. It doesn't have to be that way

It is only that way because we let it.

A candidate like Edwards is not the only answer -- but we ought to support anything that pushes things in the right direction rather then getting too cynical and defeatist.

[OneGrassRoot]

39. ABSOLUTELY. I've been saying this ad nauseum...

so often falling on deaf ears or being labeled a conspiracy theorist. I can't for the life of me comprehend why others here don't see this; and, if they see it, why aren't they enraged?

If you're not enraged, you're not paying attention!

K&R!

:patriot:

[Zorra]

59. It doesn't have to be that way; but it is that way - please listen,

I'm a longtime Dennis Kucinich supporter that now supports John Edwards. I love what John Edwards is saying.

I watched Kucinich get ignored by the media, and now I've watched Edwards get ignored by the media.

Because they are pro-democracy candidates.

The truth is, *I* really did not let this happen. If you did, well, we all make mistakes. I've been trying to inform others about the corporate takeover of our government, and the methods of corruption, deceit, and propaganda that corporations have used to influence the American People and take over our government for the entirety of my adult life, and some before that even.

The "authorities" beat me with billyclubs (for doing absolutely nothing wrong) at the WTO protests in Seattle, and I was there at Kilometer Zero in Cancun.

Fighting fascist corporate takeover of democracy is a dirty, mostly thankless job that requires "eternal vigilance". But sadly, even here at Democratic Underground, a site that is purported to be a Progressive Democratic site, there are a large number of mostly "sweet and well-meaning but don't really get it yet type liberals", a few too many DLC type republicans that really would love to be Democrats but can't seem to let go of their mommy and/or daddy's conservative spankings, and a few trolls straight out of the American Enterprise Institute, all actively working against our chances of electing a US President that will restore democracy to the United States of America.

And there's a lot of folks here that really do get the fact that corporations have become the enemy of American democracy. I would like to thank and acknowledge these genudems:
:woohoo: :applause:

So if I seem to be cynical and/or defeatist about our political process, well, OK, whatever...I can accept that, it's probably true.

Just please understand that I am totally behind John Edwards and his "populist" pro-democracy candidacy. But I can see that he's getting totally "Kooched" by the corporate media, and a person just don't gotta be a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

[Armstead]

72. I've seen steady improvement over the years

Sorry if I seemed to single you out or misread your post. Wasn't intentional. It's just that cynicism and fatalism are often too prevalent, and I sometimes feel the need to respond. Widespread fatalism is the best ally the corporate elite has. I'll admit that it is something I have to be careful about within myself too.

Although I've never gotten myself billyclubbed at a demonstration, I have in my own way been following these issues and doing what I can to turn the tide for years.

I'll admit that I often tend to get cynical myself, especially when watching the current election unfold.

But i also try to remind myself that things are changing. The views about trade that were branded as "extreme left" held by a "small minority of malcontent isolationists" in the latre 1990's are now much more mainstream. There is no longer the automatic acceptance of the con job of the neo-liberal elites that there used to be.

Hell even Hillary has to admit (albeit grudgingly) that NAFTA has "problems."

There's still a long way to go, I realize. But at least it is moving in the right direction.

[bagrman]

180. It's easier for the sheeple to understand if you call it a business plan, not corporatism.

[Armstead]

37. Great Post

[awaysidetraveler]

43. Edwards and Obama take money from the same people, and they do it in the same ways.

Check opensecrets.org for details. They're all--all--all taking money from the same people.

[awaysidetraveler]

44. Well, I guess Kucinich wasn't taking big corporate money, but he's not with us anymore.

[Zorra]

67. Thanks for that clarification.

I really believe that it is important that we acknowledge and encourage the integrity of our honest Representatives.

[Triana]

53. Opensecrets.org is where the chart came from (n/t)

[balantz]

51. This is THE primary issue that is being overlooked.

Nothing can ever get done until we free ourselves from the control of the corporate-elite. The oligarchy has been training us for generations and they manipulate us through our petty desires. They manipulate us through our fear of losing national security, and design real scenarios to beat that fear into us. They manipulate us through our gullibility to follow a charismatic big talker who promises to lead us into the garden of peace and brotherhood if we just have hope and believe in him. This shit runs deep and we are being fooled into once again following in step behind the pied-piper of the elite who are the minority and yet they have always controlled us. Edwards is our one chance to have a leader who will lead the battle for our freedom from dominance. People just don't see the urgency and importance of this election. All of the fascist controls are in place with which the oligarchy can, and will remove our last bits of freedom. We will have no defenses left in a very short time. We will more and more become slaves, manipulated through our tribal instincts and fears, and thrown scraps to keep us quiet, and those scraps will become more and more meager. PEOPLE JUST DON"T FUCKING GET IT!!!!

[femrap]

87. Maybe when their pensions and 401Ks

are gone, they'll get it. Or when they're living in their car. W and neocons are doing everything they can to keep this stock market up until after the election. Free market, my ass! The sooner this economy hits the skids the sooner people will wake up...imho.

[asdjrocky]

55. This is your masterpiece on DU.

Wonderful work. Proud to K&R!

[Triana]

69. Thanks rocky - and for heaven's sake...

...THANK YOU for all the work you've done on Edward's behalf. I'd hug you to bits if I could.

[balantz]

57. By the way, great post.

As you can see, though I tend to get carried away into conspiracy talk, I do agree with all you stated. I am just so frustrated and afraid for our country's future.

[Triana]

70. you're not alone with your frustration and fear...

...most certainly not. I think it's justified.

[FrenchieCat]

58. I'm sorry, but I don't see Edwards solutions to the issues.....

Only listing the problems. I can do this too.

So what are his solutions, and how does he intend to get his solutions enacted?

[desertflamingo]

63. go to his website...

don't be lazy. do the work. read his website for goodness sakes. can you tell me how obamarama will solve problems or are we supposed to accept kumbaya as the solution?

EDWARDS '08

[FrenchieCat]

78. I['m sorry, but I don't get the Excitement....

Edwards is saying what's wrong. But I know what's wrong. But what is he going to do about it, and how?

You see, this is what is always said of Barack Obama. He just talks. He just gives speeches.

And when I refer Edwards supporters to Obama's website, thei poo-poo the idea, saying....All he does is talk about Hope, what's that? Doh.

So I'm asking Edwards supporters, how does Edwards plan to fight the corporations? And how will he get his plan enacted? To get this excited about Edwards throwing red meat does not illuminate how he is gonna "fight".

[redqueen]

130. You're just not looking...

http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/poverty/index.html

[Two Americas]

79. read his book

Go to his website. Listen to his speeches.

(mild and good natured sarcasm)

[femrap]

88. Aren't you supposed

to be looking for change and unity in the future?

We could ask you the same questions...but the one I am most interested in: How does Obama plan on beating McCain?

[redqueen]

128. Then you're not looking very hard.

"In a series of bold initiatives, he has called for an end to poverty in thirty years, universal healthcare, a hike in the minimum wage to $9.50 by 2012 and an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050--accomplished in part by the creation of a green-collar jobs corps. His policy proposals are not always perfect, but they are uncommonly detailed and crafted in conjunction with progressive organizations. Most important, his programs were announced first, and they clearly pushed Clinton and Obama in a progressive direction. His healthcare plan stops short of a single-payer program, but it unapologetically includes employer mandates and tax increases. Likewise, although he voted for the Iraq War and his plan to end it doesn't commit to full and immediate withdrawal, he has repudiated that vote and proposes a faster pullout than his two main rivals. And Edwards is the only leading candidate to connect the war and the home front, bravely arguing that an ambitious domestic agenda would require cuts to the military budget. His is the campaign that has most effectively responded to the spirit of progressive populism that lifted Congressional Democrats to victory in 2006."

http://mobile.thenation.com/docmobile.mhtml?i=20080107&s=editors

[deacon]

60. You are soooooooooooooo right on this. HUGE kick! n/t

[Unsane]

61. Wish Edwards was this populist while he was still in the Senate!

[desertflamingo]

64. he was a representative...

y'know, representing his constituents. hardcore, redstaters. he's seen the light. can people not forgive him of parts of his past?

EDWARDS '08

[Armstead]

74. Check this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4240333&mesg_id=4240333

[Snotcicles]

102. I wish I never sold my 63 Nova, but I did. Should I never drive again? nt

[MissDeeds]

65. K & R

Great post. :kick:

[Divine Discontent]

73. John is my choice for President, and no others come close right now... n/t

[7horses]

76. Edwards is...

not against corporations... Edwards is against corporate greed.

Oh, and Edwards has a big house and is rich... does anyone remember FDR or JFK... rich , big houses... still managed to helped the poor, and middle class.

I wonder how much money Obama has?
I wonder how much money Clinton has?
These are bogus issues.

Oh, one more thing... Go john go!!!

[pauldg0]

77. Amen, brother................

..how in the world is he going to get this across to the people. Everyone else in in the Aura of having either a women or a black president and they have no other agenda.

You genius folks at the Edwards Headquarters, please put those thinking caps on.

[tomp]

80. nobody is talking about the crimes of bush/cheney, inc.

i agree that corporatism (read:imperialism/fascism) is the mother (if not the great-grandmother) of issues. but the elephant in the room in a more concrete sense are the crimes of this administration. none of the big three are saying word one about war crimes, treason, constitution defiling and how they plan on handling holding these criminals accountable. this, imo, is complicity. and that includes edwards.

this is issue #1 for me. the only candidate who will get my vote is the one who addresses this issue head on to my satisfaction. i will not stand for sweeping this under the rug. i will not tolerate a nixon/ford redux. and just to put a finer point on it, if any candidate were to promise to bring the troops home tomorrow, and give us universal single-payer health care, and media reform, and voting reform, ad infinitum, but do not address the crimes of bush/cheney, inc. then count me out.

[Plucketeer]

89. SO - to your thinking...

...instead of turning the train wreck around, we should just focus however many years of prosecution it would take to flog the guilty. Meanwhile, forget focusing on helping out THE PEOPLE - the people who's country this happens to be.
Trust me - there'll be hell to pay for our own little Saddam and his band of henchmen. What I wanna hear first and foremost is how OUR reps are gonna doff the yokes of corporate/lobbyists influence that's robbing us of even the chance to choose our representatives!

[tomp]

111. WHY should i trust YOU?

what guarantees can you give me that bushcheny crimes will be prosecuted?

do you really think we can move forward WITHOUT addressing thses crimes? do you remember your president nixon...and his pardon by ford? do you actually think this has nothing to do with where we are today? do you really think we can "turn this train wreck around" without addressing bushcheney AND ALL THEIR ENABLERS, INCLUDING DEMOCRATS?

are you suggesting congress/the doj cannot handle taking care of business AND prosecuting bushcheney?

do you really think that bushcheney has nothing to do with corporatism? isn't bushcheney the most egregious example of of corporatism/imperialism/fascism in our history? why not attack it head-on in the interest of opposing corporatism, as a concrete example for THE PEOPLE, as an example par excellence for educating THE PEOPLE so THE PEOPLE rise up for real change?

have you heard anything yet about HOW the democratic candidates plan to accomplish the herculean task of defeating corporatism, i mean besides pretty words from edwards? do you think the corporatists are going to go quietly? do you think the dems actually represent any kind of viable force against corporatism? do you think any party that is not sufficiently outraged to bring charges or impeachment against bushcheney is worth a damn in the fight against corporatism?

[Plucketeer]

145. So...

Forget any idealistic thinking or proposals - let's make the puppets pay for ALL the wrong that's been done to us! Is that gonna recoup all the lives and treasure plundered from our coffers???

You're right - the Corps are gonna resist being disconnected from the teats they've suckled from for SO long, but THAT'S what has to happen to prevent yet ANOTHER GWB from playing god. It's admirable to swat at the flies in your house, but while you're swatting the ones that already got in - not tending the hole in the screen door is gonna render your flyswatting to a futile and repetitive gesture.

[tomp]

160. wow! way not to answer a question.

which one of the many i asked did you answer?

or did you just repeat what you had previously said?

let's try to find some common ground here, ok?

you and i are both against corporatism, right?

my plan is to pressure the candidates (in this election, primary and general,to take a stand on the actual crimes of bushcheney and not let them off scot free, in order to deter further trnsgressions and to educate the people.

your plan is...?

[MsMagnificent]

85. Corporations are GOOD...

*glazed eyes*

Goooooooooooooooood......
Corporations are the entities that deserve welfare, not lazy supposedly 'poor' individuals who leech off the government....
Noooooo.....
It's not the Corporation's fault --even though they made years of bad or even illegal decisions and KNEW what they were doing would have this blow-back! It's not THEIR fault that they aren't quite making the obscene profits they made in the past few years... and that includes the poor, put-upon realtors and mortgage lenders.
Well, maybe it IS their fault, but they're not making the profits they so recently made!!!
That's what's important! Priorities, people!

It's a uniquely an American travesty! Oh, the humanity (courtesy of corporations having human status)

Of course, oil companies deserve welfare by default, never mind the records upon records upon records of historic profits and multi-multi million dollar hand-outs to their executives -- pre-collapse of the U.S. dollar of course!
Yessssssssssssssss.......

And any other business. too! Sad, put-upon things. Is it their fault that so many people simply cannot afford to purchase their products?
Noooooooo....
It's because those people are just plain LAZY!
Yesssssss...

It's just too bad these Conservative/Libertarian (Neo-Zombie) cries aren't crying for
Brraaaaiiiiinnnnssssss.........

For that is what they REALLY need, even if by osmosis after ingestion -- any way possible.
And yes in reality that well may be appropriate, they do indeed act just like cannibals
but victimizing only the poor
--the wealthy are our superiors, right?
(Well, unless you're John Edwards or a Kennedy. Heck, unless you're a Democrat .)




Pardon my unassuaged anger, sorry for the stupid sarcastic rant... but jeebus that's what these 'Saved' dittoheads (and seemingly many Democratic politicians too, to one extent or another --mind you, I'm only basing that on their actual votes) seem to actually believe.
Not think -- heaven knows they don't do that!
But believe, along with their new, improved messiah: Jesus Christ, the Conservative Prince of War, Vengeance and Supply Side Economics. Ah-MEN!

It was only a matter of time before they rewrote that old, "quaint" document The New Testament.

Oh, yesssssssssssssssss........ yes it was.

[cottonseed]

147. If he's going to be a Populist, then be a Poplulist!

Oops!, this was supposed to be posted under the original post.

You know, this isn't a knock on Edwards, but if he's going to run on this platform, this 2 America's theme, then conventional wisdom tells me ALL moneyed interests will be out to attack him. So, if that's the case, take a chance, go ahead and propose returning the income tax rate at the top bracket back to pre-1980's levels. Hell, I'd vote for the guy if he'd peg the top rate at 1950's levels! (think 80%/90%).

That's the type of taxing it takes to get this country back on track, pay down the debt, and rebuild the crumbling infrastructure that our greatest generation built for us.

[MsMagnificent]

self delete -- dupe

Firefox down, unused to Exploder & hit some key that posted it :/

[MsMagnificent]

181. self delete -- dupe

Firefox down, unused to Exploder & hit some key that posted it :/

[MsMagnificent]

182. Well

I'd sure agree with that assessment...

However, IMO of course, even as he is now, Edwards is head and shoulders above the plastic Rock-em Sock-em Robots: Hillary and Obama. Sure, it's way past time to have a president that's a woman or a person of color, but both of their backstabbing antics show no honor whatsoever, not to mention BOTH are Repuke ass-kissers.

Neither, despite their race or gender, are worthy.
Like I said, this is MO, so don't any of you Obama or Hillary fans go off on me or even try to catapult the individual propaganda -- I'm sick of reading the same lame excuses time and again... you'll just go on ignore. Neither deserves to be president, especially at this time -- a president that has to begin to fix the many & universal travesties Dubya & Co. have gotten us in these past years.
To do that properly, Truth, Intelligence, Principles, Honesty and Honor are needed; not hawkish, mealy-mouthed, triangulating propagandists who kiss the asses of Corporations/Lobbyists/Israeli's (the apartheid government mind you -- not the people)/Evangelicals/REPUBLICANS who base their decisions not on what's good for the common man, aka We the People!

To start with, something I believe Hillary and Obama are incapable of even if they COULD disengage themselves from the latest-fashion cowardly Democratic self-involvement and survival of self above all other things, the very first thing they need to do:
to stand up to Repukes and call them on their bullshit,
NOT kowtow to them or virtually service them
in the way one certain Monica did to someone we know ...for now we'll call him Sleepy : )
(Don't get me wrong, there were things Bill did I HATED, but damn, give me the Big Dog ANY day over what Repuglicans we've had the past half century!)
Maybe Obama will develop some backbone, specifics and honor in a few years; once he drops some certain 'friends'
such as those whose influence (among others, generic Evangelical Christians, again, among them) will guarantee our government still treating gay and gayette Americans as second class --or worse-- citizens!

If anyone should have learned about equal rights for ALL, no matter how or what one was born you'd think....
:(


Gah, another rant. Anyhow, no lectures please. Not interested. The Hillary and Obama minions, by their own propaganda, er writing, have time and again proven they are not to be completely believed.
Sorry to insult, but their spin is very like Conservative pundits.

A sorry statement.





Edited: Hit key and published prior to the completion of the post.

[CorpGovActivist]

92. You Couldn't Be More Right...

... if you spent a month of Sundays trying. John Edwards understands the root causes of the FIXABLE problems we're facing as a society, as a nation, and as a member of the world community.

- Dave

[defendandprotect]

94. Wonderful thread-! ...but anyone taking up this issue is in danger .. .

maybe only the MIIC's perpetual war is more dangerous a subject --- I'm not sure--???

Corporate media obviously has to get rid of Edwards as fast as possible--

instead of permitting the race to be narrowed down to 2 or 1 candidate, we would have been much smarter to stick with four candidates until summer ---

You can see how they begin to center in on the one or two already --- !!!

I'm also convinced that not only was there an "Operation Gladio" in Europe post WWII to keep liberal government at bay, but we had an Operation Gladio in America --- and I think this is still all going on!!! And I'm sure that "control" also involves election steals in America.

[Triana]

97. We KNOW they don't want him to be heard, that's a certainty...

...One thing Edwards also addressed was media consolidation - and the corporate-owned MEDIA knows that. Part of their squeezeout of Edwards is to protect themselves from having to break up their huge mega-media conglomerates - meaning they'd have less CONTROL of the MESSAGE and the NATIONAL CONVERSATION during times like these - during elections.

The book "The Assault on Reason" by Al Gore comes to mind.

[Digit]

95. Good post

JE all the way!

[and-justice-for-all]

101. Getting ALL the corperations and their lobbist off the hill...

is the primary reason why this country is at a stand still, they need to be regulated and kept on a short lease. They surely should not be able to do whatever the fuck they want.

Shurb Co. and their ilk do not help matters either.

[liberalla]

104. Big kick & Recommended!

Excellent.

Onwards, Upwards, Edwards. 2008

[Voltaire99]

105. He gets it. But he won't get the nomination.

Populism is a hard sell to innocents. Kids, identity politics voters and suburban soccer moms aren't exactly keen to hear it.

They'll all become populists after the economy crashes. Ironically, for now, the Democratic nomination is being guided by superficial tastes and a banal news media -- and especially by fantasies that if we can only replace big bad Bush, everything will be fine. Nope: you'll still have the same complacent party that bent over for Bushism over and over again. Not a dime's worth of difference...

Let's see how backing the guy with the Wall St. funding who likes Reagan and the woman who likes war and corporations works for ya, folks!

[Triana]

113. I agree Volaire - unfortunately you are absolutely right..

...this country is about to make yet another stupid, monumental blunder.

You wrote:

"the Democratic nomination is being guided by superficial tastes and a banal news media -- and especially by fantasies that if we can only replace big bad Bush, everything will be fine. Nope: you'll still have the same complacent party that bent over for Bushism over and over again. Not a dime's worth of difference..."

And I agree with every syllable of that.

[frog92969]

117. "replace big bad Bush, everything will be fine. Nope"

Totally agree.
It's enough to make you wanna cry.

[redqueen]

132. *sigh*

[BrklynLiberal]

106. Adding another K & R

[Phred42]

112. Corporations are worse than Terrorists

Edwards is exactly correct. Which is why the Chamber of Commerce is spending $60 million to stop him ( and others)


Chamber of Commerce vows to punish anti-business candidates
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-chamber8jan08,0,4301350.story?coll=la-home-center

How much damage has been done to Democracy, Economy, Constitution, etc by Terrorists - how much has been damaged by Corporations?

I rest my case

[Triana]

114. Corporate terrorism...aka The Shock Doctrine...

...yep. There ya go.

I agree.

[clarence swinney]

121. WALL STREET

RICH CASINO

Most stock trades are not involving middle class.Wealthy.

TOTAL stock market in the first six years of Bush gained an average of 4% per year.

41% under Clinton

Feds flushed banks with money.

They were pressed to loan it.

Wall Street owns Corporations.

Wall Street Owns America.

Corporations are now like trading baseball cards.Good old Michael Milken.

[RestoreGore]

124. Kick the lobbyists out of Washington DC

The only one saying it is John Edwards, and he's right. Recommended.

[Time for change]

125. That is indeed the mother of all other issues

I'm so glad that Edwards is making a big deal out of this. This MUST be dealt with at some point before too long, or else we can say goodbye to our democracy.

[Triana]

136. Frankly I think (just my opinion)..

..that our Democracy is gone. This was our LAST CHANCE to save it from corporate terrorism and we failed - collectively - to do so.

Is the end of the world? No. But it's the end of the Democratic Party and of the foundations this nation and that party was built on and for.

I think the DLC status-quo "Democrats" finally succeeded in sawing that branch we were perched upon completely off the tree and we're just on the way down to the cold hard ground at this point.

There is no regard for social or economic justice in this country. What - what does that make US?

[Time for change]

166. It has certainly disintegrated quite a bit

Whether that is temporary or permanent, only time will tell. We are hoping that someone like John Edwards can and will go a significant way towards restoring it -- though it does appear that his chances of getting elected are small and diminishing. Rasmussen puts his chances of winning the nomination at 0.8% -- and that sounds about right to me. But you never know.

[redqueen]

131. "his programs were announced first, and ... pushed Clinton and Obama in a progressive direction"

http://mobile.thenation.com/docmobile.mhtml?i=20080107&s=editors

"On the campaign trail Edwards has displayed a smart, necessary partisanship--denouncing corporate power and its crippling influence on government. He has argued with conviction that government does best when it does more for its citizens. His campaign has met some roadblocks. He has not managed to consolidate the traditional Democratic base, and while he has loyal supporters among organized labor, he has not sewn up union support across the board, nor has he excited a cohort of previously disenfranchised voters. Perhaps some have been turned off by the media's relentless fixation on the "three H's"--haircuts, hedge funds and houses--symbols of the gap between his populist rhetoric and his lifestyle. Nonetheless, he has been at his best when taking on spiraling economic inequality. In a series of bold initiatives, he has called for an end to poverty in thirty years, universal healthcare, a hike in the minimum wage to $9.50 by 2012 and an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050--accomplished in part by the creation of a green-collar jobs corps. His policy proposals are not always perfect, but they are uncommonly detailed and crafted in conjunction with progressive organizations. Most important, his programs were announced first, and they clearly pushed Clinton and Obama in a progressive direction. His healthcare plan stops short of a single-payer program, but it unapologetically includes employer mandates and tax increases. Likewise, although he voted for the Iraq War and his plan to end it doesn't commit to full and immediate withdrawal, he has repudiated that vote and proposes a faster pullout than his two main rivals. And Edwards is the only leading candidate to connect the war and the home front, bravely arguing that an ambitious domestic agenda would require cuts to the military budget. His is the campaign that has most effectively responded to the spirit of progressive populism that lifted Congressional Democrats to victory in 2006."

[Triana]

138. That is he only role he can fill now - that the lamestream media has relegated him to....

...."kingmaker" or the one who drives the rest of them to Left - toward the Progressive ideals that the Democratic Party is SUPPOSED to stand for and - USED to stand for.

[redqueen]

140. Well... I still have hope...

Naive I may be, but I have to hope more people will hear his message and decide to support him.

But I'm very glad he's in it, continuing to push the message LEFT!

[Maat]

134. Well, I'm with you on this.

I heard the important points made by Dennis K. all along, but the media made sure that his message was not heard, by and large. Besides Kucinich, Edwards is the only one who brought the crucial points; and, Dennis K. is no longer in the race. So, now I'm an Edwards supporter (happily).

[lisainmilo]

137. Kick and Recommend! n/t

[Kurovski]

139. K&R. (nt)

[peacock]

141. Yes! Thank you!

[Myrina]

142. ... those same corporations are going to keep him from being elected ...

:( They've mastered the dog-and-pony show on both sides of the aisle, hedged their bets, and will NOT relinquish their strangle hold on the workers of this country.

[elias7]

143. can someone spell out for me Edwards' plan for anti-corporatism?

or point me to a link that addresses specifics?

[Triana]

148. Here:

http://www.issues2000.org/John_Edwards.htm#Corporations

and here:

http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/govt-reform/

[cottonseed]

146. Yes, Edwards is talking about the big things.

However, there's 2 more I think are worth mentioning if we're going to air all the dirty laundry. The Military Industrial complex, and the infiltration/overtaking of vital government branches with religious fundamentalists.

Also, this is my first post with my new username! I've been trolling and occasionally posting this site for many years - for some reason I had a hankering to take on a new online username!

[Triana]

150. welcome back cottonseed - I agree RE: those other two

It'd be nice to REALLY CLEAN our house in Washington of all this viral crap.

[cottonseed]

149. If he's going to be a Populist, then be a Poplulist!

You know, this isn't a knock on Edwards, but if he's going to run on this platform, this 2 America's theme, then conventional wisdom tells me ALL moneyed interests will be out to attack him. So, if that's the case, take a chance, go ahead and propose returning the income tax rate at the top bracket back to pre-1980's levels. Hell, I'd vote for the guy if he'd peg the top rate at 1950's levels! (think 80%/90%).

That's the type of taxing it takes to get this country back on track, pay down the debt, and rebuild the crumbling infrastructure that our greatest generation built for us.

[Triana]

152. They'd lynch him if he even suggested that. (n/t)

[cottonseed]

183. Agreed, but a nice fat juicy top marginal tax rate is just what we need n/t

[donkeyotay]

153. Yep, it's the central issue. Obama seems to be selling amnesia.

He 1) mis-identifies the problem: he says it partisan politics. And then 1) he mis-identifies the solution: forget everything in the past, and embrace him blindly as the future. He's wrong on both counts.

[Triana]

174. I agree. He's selling gossamer platitudes and dreamy words..(and dreamy worlds)...

...thin on specifics and more opium and pablum than common sense about - or a solid understanding of - or solutions to address the real issue(s) - and he has NO idea what the problem is OR what the solution is because just like Clinton, he is PART of the problem. Hard to see it -- when you ARE it.

Flying pretty kites from within the source does not a solution make. It only causes a distraction from the source of the problem - temporarily.

[Robert Oak]

156. Corporations are picking the President too

They are frankly. I heard something from Romney that caught my attention. People rightfully acknowledging he's buying the Presidency with his own millions and he replied:

"Because it's my money I don't owe anybody anything"

and I had to think about that for a minute. That's really true, he's the super rich guy buying the Presidency instead of the usual
corporations buying the candidate.

This isn't an endorsement for Romney, after all I believe he's going to just do his other super rich pals big favors if he wins, but I found that quite insightful of a statement.

I also find this whole "race/gender" thing an obvious smokescreen so few look at the real positions of both Clinton and Obama and realized they are pushing corporate agenda left and right. I'm sorry, it's true, they are beholden.

[Hepburn]

161. Fucking corporations have control of our health care system...

...and that is why we see today the obscenities that have come about. How about Kaiser Permanente patient dumping indigents on skid row in LA? One guy was a paraplegic and they dumped him to fucking crawl on the ground.

Yep, the corporation are too damn powerful and get punished for what they do far too little.

[Triana]

165. That is sickening - what a sad, despicable statement about the state..

...that this country has been allowed to deteriorate to when we're dumping the sick and injured into the streets for inability to pay. It's just one of an increasing number of human rights issues we have here.

I seriously doubt that the two frontrunner candidates who have likely taken fistfuls of money from K-P and the likes of them will do ANYTHING substantial to solve this issue - or many others.

[307 MMS]

162. And who owns the Message?

The corporations! The messenger can't get a fair hearing because the corporations aren't going to be part of killing the goose laying the golden eggs, i.e. the tax dollars/breaks they rake in. No way are they going to give JRE his air time. Look how DK was marginalized. It's all about the status quo and voting for the lesser of 2 evils. We need another serious party, as them Dems ignore John, too...or we need REVOLUTION!!! Nothing short will do.

[Triana]

164. That's right - the corprat-owned lamestream media controls the message...

...pushes out the propaganda, and uses the American voters' penchant for distraction and their complacency in paying attention to the issues (their weaknesses) against them - to get them to vote AGAINST their own best interests - and FOR the most corporate-friendly candidates instead.

Happens every election - though it has gotten MUCH worse in the last 10-20 years.

[go west young man]

163. Perfectly put. Around that one issue everything else revolves.

[JuniperLea]

167. This is why corp America and Republicans want...

Clinton or Obama... and this is why the media is ignoring Edwards. The media are corporate entities, after all.

Great post, Triana!


K&R!!!

[moodforaday]

168. kick, and rec, and

I wish I could do it a hundred times.

[Bread and Circus]

169. Bullshit. Total fucking bullshit.

Obama addresses the influence of corporations and its ill effect on government head on.

In fact he actually got a law passed to address part of the problem and has sponsored and written numerous bills to the same effect.

He is also the only Democratic Senator candidate to vow not to funnel any money in the form of EARMARKS to private corporations. He is also the first canddiate to reveal his past earmark record.

Edwards WILL NOT reveal his earmark record. I wonder why?

Obama has legislation in the pipe and promises to make government lobbying and corporate earmarks (aka corporate welfare) radically change.

Ethics in government is one of Obama's signature issues.

I agree with Edwards current RHETORIC, but what was his earmark record?

[kelligesq]

171. Obama pased a law that you could only accept lunch from a lobbyist if you were standing up, big deal

didnt you listen to the debate where both Edwards and the moderator Joe Johns called him on that.

One thing I will say is that he is a master of telling partial truths.

[Bread and Circus]

177. Lies. Please know the facts...

Read:

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

In the first month of the newly Democratic-controlled 110th Congress, Obama worked with Russ Feingold (D–WI) to eliminate gifts of travel on corporate jets by lobbyists to members of Congress and require disclosure of bundled campaign contributions under the "Honest Leadership and Open Government Act", which was signed into law in September 2007.<67> He joined Charles Schumer (D-NY) in sponsoring S. 453, a bill to criminalize deceptive practices in federal elections, including fraudulent flyers and automated phone calls, as witnessed in the 2006 midterm elections.<68>

The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 (Pub.L. 110-81, 121 Stat. 735, enacted 2007-09-14) is a law of the United States federal government that amended parts of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. It strengthens public disclosure requirements concerning lobbying activity and funding, places more restrictions on gifts for members of Congress and their staff, and provides for mandatory disclosure of earmarks in expenditure bills. <1>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Funding_Accountability_and_Transparency_Act_of_2006

The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (S. 2590)<1> is an act that requires the full disclosure of all entities or organizations receiving federal funds beginning in fiscal year (FY) 2007 on a website maintained by the Office of Management and Budget. This bill was introduced by Senators Tom Coburn and Barack Obama on April 6, 2006 and passed unanimously in the Senate on September 7, 2006 and was passed in the House on September 13, 2006. The bill was signed into law by President George W. Bush on September 26, 2006. In August 2006 there was a "secret hold" on the legislation placed by Senators Ted Stevens<2> and Robert Byrd.<3> The Congressional Budget Office estimates S. 2590 will cost $15 million over its authorized time period of 2007 - 2011.<4>. The website USAspending.gov opened in December 2007 as a result of the FFAT act of 2006.

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=LatestNews.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=8dcb8c35-802a-23ad-4d37-9c8ea9c43460

Senate Passes Coburn-Obama Bill to Create Internet Database of Federal Spending

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – U.S. Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Barack Obama (D-IL) today hailed the Senate’s passage of the “Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act,” a bill that will create a Google-like search engine and database to track approximately $1 trillion in federal grants, contracts, earmarks and loans.

“Every American has the right to know how their government spends their money, and then to hold elected officials accountable for those decisions. I applaud my colleagues for unanimously supporting a bill that will aid the American people in that effort,” Dr. Coburn said. “This bill is a small but significant step toward changing the culture in Washington. Only by fostering a culture of openness, transparency and accountability will Congress come together to address the mounting fiscal challenges that threaten our future prosperity.”

“The group that deserves credit for passing this bill, however, is not Congress, but the army of bloggers and concerned citizens who told Congress that transparency is a just demand for all citizens, not a special privilege for political insiders. Their remarkable effort demonstrates that our system of government does work when the people take the reins of government and demand change,” Dr. Coburn said.

“By helping to lift the veil of secrecy in Washington, this database will help make us better legislators, reporters better journalists, and voters more active citizens,” Obama said. “It’s both unusual and encouraging to see interest groups and bloggers on the left and the right come together to achieve results. This powerful grassroots alliance shows that at the end of the day, Americans want to see Congress work together to get something done and not continue to engage in the partisan gridlock that so often brings Capitol Hill to a grinding halt.”

More than 100 organizations ranging from Americans for Prosperity and Taxpayers for Common Sense to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and Greenpeace have endorsed S. 2590.

Dozens of editorials boards across the country including the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Chicago Sun-Times and The Oklahoman have also endorsed S. 2590.

Forty-three Senators co-sponsored S. 2590 including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Tom Carper (D-DE), Susan Collins (R-ME), Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (R-AZ), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), John Kerry (D-MA), John Cornyn (R-TX) and others.

Here's what I found out about John Edwards Senate career on wiki:

Senate career

Senator Edwards on Meet The PressEdwards won election to the U.S. Senate in 1998 as a Democrat against incumbent Republican Senator Lauch Faircloth. Despite originally being the underdog, Edwards beat Faircloth by 51.2% to 47.0% — a margin of some 83,000 votes.

During President Bill Clinton's 1999 impeachment trial in the Senate, Edwards was responsible for the deposition of witnesses Monica Lewinsky and fellow Democrat Vernon Jordan. During the 2000 presidential campaign, Edwards was reported to be on Democratic nominee Al Gore's vice presidential nominee "short list" (along with John Kerry and Joe Lieberman, Gore's eventual pick).

In his time in the Senate, Edwards co-sponsored 203 bills.<15> Among them was Lieberman's 2002 Iraq War Resolution (S.J.Res.46) which he co-sponsored along with 15 other senators, but which did not go to a vote;<16> he voted for replacement resolution (H.J Res. 114) in the full Senate to authorize the use of military force against Iraq, which passed by a vote of 77 to 23,<17> saying on October 10, 2002 that "Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States; and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations' credibility."<18> He defended his vote on an October 10, 2004 appearance on Meet the Press, saying "I would have voted for the resolution knowing what I know today, because it was the right thing to do to give the president the authority to confront Saddam Hussein...I think Saddam Hussein was a very serious threat. I stand by that, and that's why stand behind our vote on the resolution".<19> However, he subsequently changed his mind about the war and apologized for that military authorization vote. Edwards also voted in favor of the Patriot Act.

Among other positions, Edwards was generally pro-choice and supported affirmative action, and the death penalty. One of his first sponsored bills was the Fragile X Research Breakthrough Act of 1999.<20> He was also the first person to introduce comprehensive anti-spyware legislation with the Spyware Control and Privacy Protection Act.<21> He advocated rolling back the Bush administration's tax cuts and ending mandatory minimum sentencing for non-violent offenders.<22> Edwards generally supported expanding legal immigration to the United States while working with Mexico to provide better border security and stop illegal trafficking.<22><23>

Edwards served on the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. Senate Committee on Judiciary and was a member of the New Democrat Coalition.

Before the 2004 Senate election, Edwards announced his retirement from the Senate and supported Erskine Bowles, former White House Chief of Staff, as the successor to his seat; Bowles, however, was defeated by Republican Richard Burr in the election.

and here's something to really give you a bad day:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21mon2.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin

Editorial

The Truth About Ethics Reform

Published: January 21, 2008
We’ve long grown used to candidates’ cherry-picking each other’s records to score points in a campaign. But the new Congressional ethics law, and the role Senator Barack Obama played in passing it, have been belittled in troubling ways that are worth noting.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton voted for the ethics measure, but has lately suggested that it was neither a landmark change nor particularly controversial. Wrong on both counts.

[kelligesq]

170. i voted today for JOHN EDWARDS Since I will be working as a precinct advisor tomorrow,

somehow we have to find a miracle for John,

[Triana]

172. THANK YOU!

Thanks for helping JRE to give us a voice.

[NoSheep]

173. That's why he has my vote.

[Fire Walk With Me]

179. Kucinich gets this, and is under attack for it.

Please donate to his campaign so that he may retain his seat in Government and continue fighting for our country. The more, the better.

And good for Edwards to finally point the finger. Now he'd better make sure that his armor is in the best possible condition. If he continues to make this his major campaign issue (tying in to leaving Iraq immediately), he may win my vote. Thanks for posting about it.